Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Unpretentious_Diva

Regulars
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Unpretentious_Diva

  1. Either one will stand against the government, or one will compromise. And there is a third way too, and it is to bribe. The issue of bribing is similar to that of taking tax-funded jobs while knowing that taxation is theft. At my personal level, I niether take tax-funded jobs, nor I bribe anyone. But then, I am a common person who can lead a simple life without involving in corruption. There are prostitutes in my society but prostitution is illegal. They bribe cops to avoid imprisonment, punishments and rape by the organized gang of criminals called the cop. I have seen police officers beating the crap out of the street vendors and to avoid that humiliation and pain, they offer bribe to policemen. I do not find those street vendors immoral, I find them exploited. Being exploited is certainly immoral, Evil requires the sanction of victim. By bribing, they offer that sanction to the evil. Do they have any other choice? Certainly they have, they need to revolt and take arms to end the exploitation. Or to make peace their ultimate weapon and ask for freedom. I think Mahatma Gandhi offered an answer to those exploited people. I think they need to re-examine the path of Truth, Peace, and Honesty again. Bribe is not moral just because it is a way to sanction the evil and it really needs courage to oppose the evil. When I start thinking bribe as Immoral, I start thinking Mahatma Gandhi's way! “They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...” Mahatma Gandhi “The means may be likened to a seed, the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree.” Mahatma Gandhi
  2. The Constitutional preamble of India still says that it is a socialist republican state. As I said earlier, you have no idea about what corruption is. Funny thing is, you are consistently mentioning the huger strike that was initiated by "India Against Corruption" Forum. It is funny because that India Against Corruption is fighting against the Governmental corruption. By the way, have you any idea about how and why a socialist government employing mixed economy will not adopt to corruption? Furthermore, is the US any less corrupt? Isn't inflation not a corruption? Isn't Fractional Reserve Banking not a corruption? Isn't Education for All not a corruption? Isn't Universal health care not a corruption? Isn't Keynesianism simply not a corruption? You are also claiming things about legal and illegal. What should be the base of legal or illegal? What should be the base of Right or Wrong? Should the difference between Good/Evil, Right/Wrong, legal/illegal be REASON or should it be a monopoly of government over law, and violence? If you believe that the base of legal/illegal should not be REASON but the monopoly of government (as in the case of India), then I am sorry, It is a corrupt thought. About Mixed Economy, There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian. Murray Rothbard
  3. For proper protection, they can have a vigilant group of individuals providing a set of functionable laws based on Objectivist principles and Natural rights of Individuals. It would be more profitable for any such PDA to attain service and support of the best and well known philosophers, individual rights activists, civil and criminal law experts etc. I don't think they will need any government/legislation. Their customers will have an opportunity to analyze which PDA is offering a valid set of principles to exercise the service of protection and justice for them. Also, I find that your accusation that without a legislation, PDAs will fight and create gangs fighting in streets a little obtuse. A little while ago, You commented, "However I never heard about one single complain against any private security company-they value their clients and nobody would subscribe with abusive company." Why will subscribers start subscribing an abusive company if there won't be a democratically elected legislature but the PDAs independently will employ experts and knowledgable people to assert natural laws, individual rights and principles of Objectivism? Also, you said, "Imagine that Caltex and Shell get engage in the war for clients instead of selling petrol. What would be an outcome?" Why will two companies start war over any issue if there won't be a democratic (or otherwise) legislative? Especially when there is no Profit in War? Won't they look for profit, preservance and peace, and why won't they? Just becasue there won't be a government? Why won't they proceed in more profitable and peacefull manner to solve any issue? Like, they can engage their expert advisors to discuss the issue to solve the matter at least possible cost. Will Caltex and Shell start selling water instead of selling petrol if there won't be a legislature? (Sorry if I sound aburpt or rude, English is not my native language and I am just starting to analyze the concept of Private defense associations.I have just completed an article about this issue. http://tinyurl.com/9vzlznh)
  4. I should make it a little more clear. Bribing is not like paying less for getting a thing. Rather, it is paying more than what the seller is asking for. Bribing in this sense is bidding a higher price. Indian railways should be a decent example again. You will get a first class ticket for a price set by the government (if you are lucky), but you will have to try for it around two or three months ago the date for your travel. On the other hand, sometimes people find themselves forced to travel. Someone may get a telegram of a phone call from his native city about his mother's recent accident and he may feel like travelling right then to reach by the bed side of his mom. What will he do then? Obviously, accidents cannot be planned two or three months ago. He won't be able to get a ticket through the legal channe; He will have a choice to pay bribe for some clerk and the actual price of ticket to get a chance to travel. Thus, by paying high, by offering a higher bid for a seat in first class coach, he will be able to travel when it is required. I see nothing immoral in that. Same is the case of paying bribe to get a license to open a vendor's shop at your own property. First of all, government has no right to allow or disallow anyone to do anything at their own land unless the act is not harmful for others. If government is forcing people to take permits/licenses for people to use their property in the way they want, then it is corruption, moral, political, ethical corruption. To save yourself against this corruption, either you can defy government, or you can pay bribes. Defying government would be sacrificial. Bribing will not only be beneficiary for you, but it will also be beneficiary for the society at large because ultimately, people will realize that government controlling market is evil. Indians are gradually realizing this.
  5. Those who went on hunger strikes are actually the deceivers. They are the reason for the delapidated state of health care and railroads etc. Oh wow, so you mean to say that Socialism and governmental control over market is good by default and hence the healthcare and railroads of India must be in good conditions and if they are in bad conditions, they are because Indians bribe? But such kind of thinking is irrational. People are forced to bribe because they have no way out. People are forced to bribe because if they won't they won't be able to work. There is an artificial scarcity of resources which has been created by governmental interventions for Social Welfare. Since social welfare has produced such conditions, people are forced to bribe. Bribe is not the reason of delapidated healthcare of railways, bribing is the consequence of Socialistic approach of governent and denail of property rights.
  6. I guess you fail to understand the term Corruption. Bribing isn't corruption, social welfarism is corruption, using your money to buy leisure isn't corruption, corruption is the State controlling market. A person living his life honestly and using his money for his pleasure without harming anyone isn't increasing corruption, corruption is actually being supported and increased by those revolutionaries who are taking the fake issue of corruption. What are they actually demanding? They are demanding another totalitarian authority of inspectors to check every action of individuals under their false premises of corruption., They are NOT talking about reducing the actual corruption, which is certainly the State Interventionism in productive sector, they are talking about reducing that which actually makes even this corrupt state to work.
  7. Bribing is giving your hard earned money to attain some benefits. As for example, Indian transportation system is known for its underperformance. One may fail to get a train ticket to attend the funeral of his closed relative. What immoral does such a person do when he pays a share of his hard earned money (bribe) to a government clerk to get a confirmed ticket in advance? Indian healthcare system is also in a delapidated state (obviously, we have a universal health care system here). What if a person pays bribe to someone in a hospital authority to confirm a hospital bed for his ailing sister or daughter especially when he knows that it would be difficult to get proper medical care without doing so? When a person bribes a railway clerk to get a confirmed travel ticket, (I am taking a scenario in Indian conditions), he buys time that would have been wasted in a large queue to get the railway ticket. If bribing is claimed to be immoral, then it suggests that using your money for your benefit or leisure is immoral. While bribing (or using one's own hard earned money) any government officer/clerk/politician, nobody does any immoral act against anyone because basically, the premise of public goods and public services itself is immoral. Furthermore earning money is not immoral, saving money is not immoral, obviously, using money for such a purpose which actually doesn't involve any harm to any other person cannot be called as immoral. However, for a government officer, taking bribes is certainly immoral because by taking bribe, he actually acts immorally against his employer, that is, the public. I wrote something about it here http://tinyurl.com/436htpf I will talk about bribing for business profits at some other time.
×
×
  • Create New...